A Quick Click

Hmm, perhaps Ithis would be a useful exercise for all of us. Why do some expressions have the effect of the proverbial fingernails on a blackboard while other apparently similar ones do not? And does this demonstrate anything about unconscious language or usage rules?

While we’re at it, though, can I ask when ‘hate on’ as opposed to ‘hate’ entered the language? Is it a regional variant? And does it have a different shade of meaning than ‘hate’? This is a genuine question, by the way, as ‘hate on’ is new to me.

Exactly what I was thinking. The rise of “one year anniversary” comes along with the increase in more formal (consumerist?) celebrations of first [something shorter than a year] anniversaries, the most obvious being, as zimpenfish says, first month.
Yes, you can argue the “anni”versary implies year, but that’s not popular usage anymore.

“As far as” rather than “As far as . . . goes” or “As for” is a real pita.

I’m a biologist, and expressions such as “In the DNA of” drive me crazy. I know people are trying to find a new and clever way to describe something that is important or central, but “DNA” has a very specific meaning that shouldn’t be diluted, especially in a country where elected officials can discount the possibility of evolution without being laughed out of office.

Thanks, especially about going forward.

“Hate on” means the same as “hate,” except with more intensity and specificity; it also implies a certain amount of jealousy. It derives from African-American Vernacular English and was coined some time before 2001, when Dr. Dre used it in “Forgot About Dre”:

Ya’ll know me still the same ol’ G
But I been low key
Hated on by most these niggas
Wit no cheese, no deals and no G’s, no wheels and no keys
No boats, no snowmobiles and no skis
Mad at me cause
I can finally afford to provide my family wit groceries.

My biggest pet peeve is when writers use “to beg the question” when their intent is “to ask the question.” I suppose they think the former sounds more educated or elitist than the latter, in any case, it is so common as to go unnoticed by most readers. “To beg the question” is to assume as fact an unproven assertion, a very different process than to pose a question.

… which brings us to the almost always misused “quantum.” And then there’s “steep learning curve,” which any psychologist will say actually refers (on a graph of learning vs. time) to rapid learning.

This was going to be mine when I got to the bottom of the list…and you are probably right that we are so far gone we’ll never get this back for logic.  Wait, maybe there aren’t any viciously circular arguments anymore, so we might not need it…

While we’re at it: turning more nouns to verbs.  I’ve never gotten over (got over?) “impact,” and now “resource” is provoking me to physical outbursts.

At the top of my list:  “Let’s grow the economy!”

Your perspective adds to my post suggesting that the patina on Ben’s ivory is interfering with his vision. I was a ham operator as a teenager, then a performing musician. In both contexts, “mic” was and still is the correct term. The panels on aircraft have plugs for a “mic.” Ben appears to be unaware of the texture of constructs such as “best practice.” They are not denotatively empty terms. Several professional organizations, such as (http://asq.org), employ best practice methodology as part of their work on quality.

Given that language changes over time, I would still like to add the following to the list:

1.  Using “For who” ( to who, etc.)  instead of  “For whom”  (For Who the Bell Tolls?)
2.  Using “I seen” instead of  “I saw “*
3.  Using “I is” instead of “I am”*

*  Really, people, is conjugation that difficult??

Verbification of adjectives and nouns, like: impactful, architected. Feh.

I actually like “one-year anniversary,” etc.  “First anniversary” sounds celebratory, where “one-year anniversary” sounds more like a memorial.

Bingo.  When obliged to notice his existence, I refer to my own erstwhile husband.  

Yes, “gotten” in some structures now sounds right, although my high school English teacher (many years ago!), Miss Craig, always told us that “gotten rhymes with rotten.”

Without question, my biggest irritant is the misuse of the word “literally.” I’ve heard linguists argue that the meaning of the word is changing, but it still drives me bananas when someone says something like, “that literally drives me bananas.”

I’ll argue “steep learning curve” with you because I use the expression all the time, and visualize a graph of learning effort vs proficiency/effectiveness at a task, not learning vs. time, when I do so. Usually the context for me is comparing the usefulness of new library technologies (eg opacs, online boolean-based database systems) to the old systems (card catalogues, print indexes). The learning curve that is getting from novice to proficient user is much steeper for new technologies (the old ones basically required knowing alphabetical order) but the payoff is much more efficient and effective “search results”.

You’re right technically, but stop and think for a moment about what “beg” means – why is your definition the meaning of the phrase? The “wrong” meaning actually makes a lot more sense, as a shortening of something like “logic begs the listener to ask the question”.  I’m content to let this one flip meanings because the new meaning seems to make more sense to me than the old one, given the literal meanings of the words.

“Literally” may be worth fighting for, just because we don’t have a good synonym to switch to when it starts to mean its own opposite, at least that I can think of.

. . . and “to go ballistic,” always used for something exciting. A rocket goes ballistic when it has exhausted its propellant (or the propellant is shut off), and from then on behaves like any other object moving through space, subject to gravity and wind resistance.

“History” is defined as the narrative of a patient’s medical journey.  ”Past history” refers to a condition that appeared in the past.  Perhaps it was resolved in the past, or perhaps it has recurred, in which case it is now present.  To “take a history” or “take a complete history” is to establish the narrative in as much detail as possible in order to correlate present events with past events.  To “make history” is to produce an event notable enough to get recorded in the complete narrative.

Jeez.  I apologize.  I sound like a mavenly school marm, but there’s often a very good reason for locutions that strike us as ungrammatical or redundant.  One of the primary reasons is that the offending phrase is actually ambiguous (two distinct meanings: history = the past; history = the narrative) one of which is more common.

Ooops.   See “tally me bananas” in response to johnalene above.
I have a, perhaps, surprisingly complicated take on “literally.”  There is a trope (like a rhetorical figure, but having to do with meaning rather than the arrangement of words) … anyway, there  is a trope in science fiction literature by which we literalize the figurative.  When you begin reading an SF story, you should embrace with the assumption that every word is literally true until or unless the text convinces you of the contrary.  A talented SF writer uses the trope to move you from the plane of the mundane to the unexpected.  Samuel Delany first discussed the phenomenon either in _Starboard Wine_ or _The Jewel Hinged Jaw_.  ”Her world exploded” is quite as likely to mean there was a  woman who owned a planet and the planet blew up as to mean she was just having a bad day.  David Hartwell articulates the standard position in his anthology _The Science Fiction Century_.Go to Lakoff and Johnson for the past history of cognitive linguistics and our current understanding of metaphor.  The confusion of literal and figurative reveals not just “an error” but a tapping into a profound uncertainty about what is literal and what is figurative.Everything is more complicated than it at first appears.  I apologize for what may sound like hectoring, but is really just a deep interest in the phenomenon. 

“Is conjugation really that difficult?”

Not at all.  It is an excellent way to determine social class for the purpose of ostracizing the unwashed.  As for who and whom, the class-based origins of the significance is most usefully marked in hypercorrection– a preference for ‘whom’ regardless of case.  A primary cause for case confusion with who/whom is its appearance out of normal order and in embedded clauses where its use within the clause is unclear.  I used to tell students in choosing between who/whom to use who when it sounds natural and you will come off as an informal but comfortable and confident speaker.  Use ‘whom’ incorrectly (hypercorrectly) and you’ll come off sounding like a total doofus.

This is annoying mostly because it doesn’t connect with reality.  It’s language as ritual.  Paul Krugman says if we can find some space  aliens to trade with we can grow the economy; otherwise, we need a new way of thinking.

I like the substance of your comment and whole heartedly agree about the ignorance — scientific and historical — of our politicians; ……. however, when I say “X is in the DNA,” I  mean it metaphorically.  Usually I’m referencing a psychological trait or an ideological bent that really, truly could not possibly be part of the DNA in any meaningful sense but is so stand-out-ish it needs a little more umph, a punching up……

I see your objection, but raise you some fundamental understanding of what language is and how it works in all its metaphorical and literal complexity.

Surely our species specific urgency to claim the moral high ground on the cheap by dissing the verbal likes and dislikes of our putative superiors in the hierarchy is in the DNA.

Metaphor.

A hollow sandwich made with unleavened bread?

Good luck with that.

Good on you.

Good post.  Like most attempts to “simplify” spelling, an important etymological clue gets sacrificed by changing the c to k, which then requires to the extra letter, silent e, to advertise the phonetic basis of the unnecessary change.

… or wield a fork with their left hand or use the table knife or a piece of bread to round up the peas… or when they ridicule our dearly loved but unsophisticated relatives. 

No, in the sense that metaphor is not a “misuse.”  Metaphor is, however, inherently paradoxical, espousing an “is” in the context of an “is not.”    The engendered spark of cognitive dissonance gives a true metaphor its bite.  (And yes, I know that “bite” here is metaphorical.)  Paul Ricoer’s *Rule of Metaphor* is a dense but useful treatment of the topic.